Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether pledging is irreversible, whether it consumes or locks the prepaid capacity, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure or over-pledge.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The one clause it contains is forward-looking jargon that does not establish the operation before adding detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutating, two-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage needs a substantially richer description. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely and correctly is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it never mentions 'model' or 'units'. It leaves the unit of measure (tokens, hours, slots?) and the accepted model identifier format entirely undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence uses the verb 'pledge' and mentions prepaid capacity, so there is some hint of a mutation on capacity, but the noun phrase 'bought at strike' and 'as coverage' are unexplained domain jargon. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like capacity_issue or capacity_exercise, which plausibly also touch prepaid capacity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given, and none of the five sibling tools (capacity_envelope, capacity_exercise, capacity_issue, capacity_list, capacity_quote) are referenced. The agent has no basis for choosing capacity_pack over capacity_issue.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.